Pandiyarajan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Nerkuppai

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL 1.Pandiyarajan 2.Pandiyan ..Petitioners/A6 & A14 Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Nerkuppai Police Station Sivagangai District.

(Crime No. 33 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioners:Mr.S.Ramanathan Advocate.

For Respondent :Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 33 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

1/7

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A6 & A14, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 296(b), 115(2), 324(4) and 324(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 1998, in Crime No.33 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that due to previous family dispute, the petitioners along with other accused persons trespassed into the defacto complainant's house and abused her in filthy language, assaulted her and also caused damaged to the properties of the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant sustained injuries. Hence, the case.

2/7

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are no way connected in the above said incident. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) fairly submits that the petitioners has previous cases and the injured person has been discharged from the hospital. However, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, and also considering the fact that though the petitioner has previous 3/7

cases, the same are not similar in nature and in all cases, they were released on bail and the injured person has been discharged from the hospital, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Singampunari, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police once in a week ie., on Every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and 4/7

thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

[c] the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the 5/7

learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

(P D B J) 25.03.2026 vsg To 1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Singampunari. 2.The Inspector of Police, Nerkuppai Police Station Sivagangai District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

6/7

P. DHANABAL, J., vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 5901 of 2026 Date : 25.03.2026 7/7